I can't comment on how much an individual company is making. I can comment generally that construction companies profit margins are typically quite small at the end of the day. Cost estimates when these companies put millions on the line are just estimates and if a project is operating below 5% of profit margin small changes can make a project more or less not worth having done in the first place. Any PMs from really any industry can chime in to talk about how quickly estimates go out the window when the real work starts.
Also note that the "worth" of companies doesn't mean Claridge has 2 billion dollars in the bank, they would have a bunch of illiquid land assets, other RE etc, they are also private so that worth really means nothing unless they sold and they would be carrying very substantial debt at any given point. They are likely on the hook with a financier/bank for some sort of loan repayment schedule where cashflow can become king and mean they need to finish specific project milestones.
For your second question, I'll get a bit philosophical which I try to avoid on forums.
I would argue that is mostly because the electorate is generally uneducated on any industry (including non-construction). That isn't a criticism, it is just reality. A councilor is inherently political which means they answer to the electorate, regardless of if the electorate knows what kind of questions they should be asking. If you talk to the average voter/neighbour they will give you some really hot takes on what the city/province/feds should be doing. Recognize that a politician has an easier path to appeal to the emotional, non-informed vote than a knowledgeable person and it is much easier to use "common sense" than to read/do real research and formulate coherent policies/strategies, especially when you sit for only a short time.
The question I would ask you in reverse, why do people believe that developers SHOULDN'T be in constant contact with councilors. Heck council is their biggest hurdle to completing their jobs and I would argue they would be an absolutely shit-tier company if they WEREN'T constantly trying to manage a stakeholder that is prone to wild mood swings and can derail their whole business with little to no accountability or notice.
The outright hostile approach to developers is more a consequence of the hegemony of NIMBY mindsets (even in many self-proclaimed YIMBYs) and the idea that profit is inherently dirty (and by extension profit seekers).
